Ashill Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.
People were involved in their care planning, we asked people if they had access to their care plan and 1 person told us, “yeah I would say so. They go through my care plan with me, and it wasn’t long ago they did that.”

Another person told us, “They support me, how I want to be supported.” We observed interactions in the service were person-centred and aligned with people’s care needs.
Peoples care plans were person-centred and recorded what was important to people and how they like to spend their day. Some people had their own routines and staff ensured they accommodated this.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People received support from permanent staff and staff were trained in other job roles to ensure that in the event of a staff shortage due to sickness it would not impact the service, this ensured a continuity of care.

The service had an on-call arrangement in the event of an emergency, staff knew who they could contact. Healthcare professionals’ guidance and recommendations were recorded in peoples care plans, staff told us this was being followed. Staff could tell us people’s health conditions in the service and how this impacted their day-to-day lives.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Peoples care plans had up to date accessible information standard (AIS) assessments completed which recorded in detail the support a person required to communicate. For example, staff told us how they supported a person whose first language was not English by using a translator to enable two-way communication. The staff began to learn the persons language, and this enabled them to ask basic questions. People in the service told us and we observed how picture aids were used at mealtimes to show the food on offer.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The service had issued people and their relatives annual surveys to gain their feedback and actions had been developed in responses to the data received.

People were asked for feedback on their meals throughout the day. The complaints procedure was a clear process for people to follow and on display within the service and on the providers external website. People had the opportunity to attend meetings within the service. Meeting minutes evidenced where action had been taken following previous meetings and people were updated on this.

The service had tried to complete relative meetings however the attendance was not always effective, they contacted relatives who felt a 1 to 1 meeting was more suitable for them and these happened frequently in the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Equipment was readily available to support people in the service and people confirmed they did not have to wait long to be supported, 1 person told us, “I cannot walk by myself, so [staff] push me in a wheelchair, they come and put a strap around me, 2 of them and they lift me up on the machine and move into the wheelchair. I never have to wait long for it.” We observed the service had been adapted to ensure it was accessible for people and visitors. Staff assured us on the process in seeking emergency care out of hours.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff had received training in equality, diversity and inclusion and could tell us what this training meant. People’s care plans reflected equipment and support that people needed to ensure they had the same experience as others. People and staff confirmed they had never experienced discrimination in the service, 1 staff member said, “There is multicultural staff team in the home, its enhances the home and is nice to have diversity.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Care plans recorded whether a person had a recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (ReSPECT) form in place, and these were always accessible when needed. People had advanced care plans. Some were very detailed and specified on what people wanted, while others showed that their choices were respected; making certain decisions at certain times. The specialist palliative nurse had carried out end of life training with staff.